If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It seems to me that mission makers are more concerned with cinematics and over-the-top action than they are with realism. I say to you: REALISTIC MISSIONS CAN BE FUN TOO&#33;

This TDG idea is brilliant - if one or two or three mission makers start churning out a TDG once a month or so I think we&#39;ll see the quality of missions increase dramatically as more people are exposed to realistic military situations. There&#39;s a massive back catalogue of these TDGs and nearly all of them involve small unit tactics, which is perfect for OFP. Surely someone can find an interesting scenario they would want to make.

That&#39;s part of the inspiration behind the Sinews of War Missions of the Month; to create very small, realistic scenarios without a whole bunch of scripting or complexity...just straight fun. Unfortunately, it doesn&#39;t seem like many people are biting yet&#33; Hopefully, more people will contribute, or else there&#39;s not much point to it.

How do you create a realistic feeling and looking mission whilst still letting the player have fun?

If an 3 or 4 SAS soldiers were going from A to B and they expected to encounter foot patrols along the way they would move very slowly and very quietly for hours at a time checking every thing in front of them for signs of movement and evidence of the enemy.

WHo wants to walk through one of the forests in Everon taking hours to go a short distance?

I know I don't and I'd be suprised if anyone else does.

Similarly. If a patrol is ambushed and become overwhelmed what happens?
the enemy creates a kill zone in the middle, hammers the patrol with fire and closes off exits.
What chance does the player have of escaping if the ambush is to be realistic unless the mission maker offers him an unrealistic way out?

Also, with such a large open environment like OFP, How do you stop the player from walking off to the other side of the map and avoiding objectives? fill the rest of the map with enemies? stop the game if he veers off too far?
neither of these are realistic and I know that it's not realistic that a soldier would walk off in the opposite direction from his mission but it's possible that a player might.

I think the best thing to do is offer realistic mission briefings, gear loads and scenarios and leave it at that. if you can do that then you've done very well indeed.

If slogging through the woods for hours an inch at a time or out and out realism is your thing, my advice to you would be to go and have a word with your local armed forces recruitment office.

I mean, depending what army you're in - Ideally an infantry section should have about 10 men with 2 x guns - Ideally a tank platoon should have 4 x tanks - IDEALLY everyone should have a fancy ACOG sight and a UAV

But in "REALITY" - soldiers get killed - tanks break down - ammo runs out - units are worn down and link up with one another

So is it UNREALISTIC to see a T-80 and a T-72 in the same platoon? No. It might not be Russian / Soviet doctrine. But it could certainly happen. Is it unrealistic for tanks to attack without infantry support? It might be unorthodox and contrary to doctrine, but there's no reason why it can't happen in REALITY. Perhaps all the infantry are dead and the tank commander has no choice

In war, extenuating circumstnaces might require that doctrine be broken some of the time (i.e. alot of the time) - So why get fussed if everyone hasn't got the proper gear or aren't obeying proper SOP's?

agree or disagree?

when planning a mission several factors go into account.
against an unprepared enemy spec ops dominates. the
term light refers to the level of intensity of the conflict
in the area. if the area is under heavy fire thats a high
intensity area, therefore light infantry is sent into low
intensity conflicts.

the four branches of the military represent the four areas we can project our force: coast, air, land, and the sea.

when war starts all branches of the military rush to get to their intended targets.

the spec ops search for their hit in smaller teams. for a successful hit,
sometimes stealth is required or infiltration where overwhelming force
won't work.

navy seals are navy spec ops. since the navy is usually the
first one to react to international situations without war, the
seals are the prime candidates. they also serve the navy and
its crew whatever ship they're on. when the navy assaults a
base the seals go in whatever necessary configuration the
situation calls for.

devgru is a navy version of delta, counter terrorists.

marines invade the coasts making sure noone can escape by boat.
they move men and supplies by water and land, and their job is to
secure the embassies as well as retake enemy held territory.

some marine units are tasked with waiting out at sea on call
during heightened states of tension

force recon are marine commandoes that handle special ops for the marines,
or in other words, hits on special targets.

the air force is responsible for securing the airspace if jets are
a problem. this is for more developed nations.

even the air force has its own special ops to take care of lasing
targets for bombs, finding downed pilots, handling incidents at
base as well.

rangers are the army's spec ops hitting low intensity areas
for either intel or surprise raids. when they're not raiding
they're patrolling.

101 airborne is an air assault unit that is dropped in by chopper, in the old
days it was by parachute, though there still are parachute units in the army

infantry and mechanized infantry arrive by plane to a base
the rangers have established.

green berets are commandoes who handle guerilla warfare
at an organizational level as well as tactical, responsible
for planning, manning, and handling counter guerilla
operations.

delta is an army counter terrorist unit.

definitions:

terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or
violence by a person or an organized group against people
or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing
societies or governments, often for ideological or political
reasons.

guerilla warfare - sudden unexpected attacks carried out by
an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to
change the government by assaults on the armed forces.

raid - A sudden forcible entry into a place or another's
territory for the purpose of seizing goods or valuables.

I dont care if the missions are realistic or not in every litle detail...

How many of you were in the army???
not many i gues...
People watch lots of documentary and movies and try to visualise the real thing

I was in a army for some time...not in a war but i have some of the friends who have been in a Croatian-Serbian war
Belive me when i say that theyre stors are musch different from moves and Documentarys

(wee all know that even in documentarys producers like to change some things to make it more interesting)

I went trough an infantry basic training than i was on artilary Zis 75 mm old bulshit AT gun, it has like 1200 kg (2400 pounds) witch we onley used to push up the hill and down (6 of us)

When we asked why are we practising on that old pile of shit, the CO said because we have alot of ammunition for it and have to spend it anyway :P

Late we got the real thing 120 mm gun

What i want to say that 90-95% in war you are like in training, always marching somewere, carrying some load, patroling, building a camp, freazing your ass, sleeping in the wind and rain, and than you see some action (or you get shoot and end up home with out shooting 10 bullits)

most soldiers dont even see combat at all, some se it one time and 20% of them se it more than a few times...

So how to make an realistic mission when there was no real war in a long time and no one knows how it would look like if a two formidable oponents would clash with all the modern equipment...
in the last 50 years most wars are troops against guerila...or a powerfull military country against a third world country (thats why there are guerilla, if you are weaker than you adapt to the situaton

Its known that when Hanibal atacked the Roman empire he used unusual tactics for that time and managed to defet much biger and well equiped army, sloughtering 90 000 roman trops (the bigest loss the roman empire has seen in 100 years)

My favorite campagne in OFP was the "Cold War Crisys"...
because it had a dose of realisam and athmosfere and there were other units on the battlefield, tank and air suport

I still remember the first time i played the first mission in CWC campagne...
mission ended without my shooting any bodey (it showed that the war is happening and i'm not the hero that saves the day, im just another grunt in this massive assault) first game that had the mission were you acctualy have to gard a radar station at night, or recon for enemy AA, or escape from captivety and orientate your self by stars...things like that made it interesting and stand out from other game were in every mission you kill 200 enemy soldiers over and over again...

"Red Hammer" was not that god because 90% of the time i was all alone or a smal group against mass of enemy units (rambo kinde of style), same thing with "Rsistance " campagne

it dosent have to be realistic but it has to have atmosphere!
like there is a war going on out there

This game simulates battlefield so why make only missions like spec-op
use the games potential, if it has tanks, helis and infantry use them all to make versatile missions

Why onley focus on your group, put other groups like they have theyre job too and the mission will be more interesting if you see friendly units at your right side doing theyre thing, helis in air covering you and tank suporting the infantry

What makes the game realistic and interesting, its not the addons, graphic or how the trops look like, its how the mission is designed and if it has the battlefield athmosphere!!!

I completely agree with daraofp. I never understood why there are so many "Black-Op" style missions: they're fun when well-crafted, I know, but they use only a tiny portion of the OFP potential. This game can simulate - within a certain realism rate, of course - battles in which aviation, armored platoons and standard grunts are involved, so why focusing only on the special forces? daraofp is also absolutely right on the atmosphere factor: it's not much the realism put in a mission that makes it fun, but the amount of elements that make the player feel like he's really standing on a battlefield. Interesting plots, proper voice acting, cutscenes and such are of vital importance for that reason.